General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 113

She is def. being opportunistic -no doubt - at the same time she is being logical - he looks to have been radicalized - ignoring that doesn't just make racists angry it makes logical people angry

 

The thing is, not calling it "Radical islam" isn't pretending that there isn't a problem or pretending that it doesn't exist, it's mostly just a way to not subliminally put any hate or racism into the populous by continually associating the two. Obama calling it "Jihadism" is still recognizing that there's currently a terrorist threat that stems from nutjobs that distort a certain religion to fit their views, without calling it "islam" and creating that association in people that already have trouble with the "Muslim=bad" thing.

 

Oh my god this Trump speech

 

I feel like I've addressed this in the response to Spencer's question. This analysis is superficial and has no explanatory power.

 

Trump is salivating over this. And sadly, this speech is probably the most articulate and focused I've seen him. He'll get a boost from this.

 

I was watching on YouTube and the live chat thread was absolutely hilarious. It was moving so fast.

 

I follow Islam but I do not condone violence. The repeated use of the phrase "Islamic terrorism" or any variation of it will lead others, such as TSA officers and government authorities, to directly label me a terrorist because of my faith. This label carries significant weight, I'm sure you understand the implications.

Do you not see any issue with that? I've done nothing wrong but the prejudice is now there.

Second, if you are ok with that line of thinking, I urge you to start referring to all terrorists by some racial or faith based distinction. I don't recall the Sandy Hook guy ever being referred to as a White Terrorist. Even Timothy Mcveigh's white nationalist ties are oft ignored.

 

Hence, when it's a white perpetrator, mental illness is to blame.

 

The Orlando shooter very clearly had a long line of mental issues as well as obsession with violence. Without knowing him, I can't diagnose him with a psychiatric condition or personality disorder...but that he was already on the FBI's radar should've been enough to keep him from obtaining such destructive weapons.

This whole situation is disgusting.

 

Been seeing this on FB, what do you guys think?

 

Which is also an issue because mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than to commit violent acts

 

I'll probably catch some flack for this, but what about the militarized Christian/Catholic that go to the middle east and kill a bunch of people? Couldn't they be called "Christian/Catholic radicals"? Just because they're part of the US military doesn't necessarily make any difference as innocent people are caught in the crossfire and blown up during indiscriminate drone strikes.

To counter point my own point, there are good people in the military (infantry especially) that aren't over there only to rid the world of Islamic terrorists, but rather they have to go.

 

The "War on Terror" is actually a war waged between extremists from the east and the west, both religious and secular. It manifests itself as terrorists groups as well entities within our own government.

 

see: "American Sniper"

 

In a vacuum, arguably, but contextually because of years of racist characterization, representation in media (including video games), and a decade long war on terror, the two simply can't be weighed equally. The larger structure of discrimination is much, much more in favor of (white) Christians.

 

wait, no, i mean. don't see the movie american sniper. its a thing when youre trying to point to a. nvm.

 

Well spoken as expected. Do you mind if I share this with my dad? This is something I've tried to explain to him.

Do you think there is anything particular about Islam that allows it to be manipulated for radicalization, or do you think it's more an issue of confirmation bias and discrimination that we tend to harp on these incidents?

 

Hope it's ok if interject regarding the latter question.

There's nothing within the faith itself that allows for manipulation moreso than any other major faith or belief system. However, given the history of Western interaction with largely Islamic nations (I don't need to list the sheer number of grievances and war crimes committed upon Muslim peoples) has led to a very large population of disenfranchised Muslims. Just a few months ago the US perpetrated a bombing of a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan. The response to such events has local and global repercussions. As a Muslim, I was upset by it and felt dehumanized. I am lucky enough to be in a good place in my life, I know many others who aren't...seeing this in the news can very quickly lead to radicalization, in the same way that inner city African Americans can turn to gangs. When you throw in rising Islamophobia in both the US and abroad, it's very easy to lose faith in Western democracies...these governments and people do not care for us.

If you look into the socioeconomic issues of any disenfranchised people, you'll find a very strong correlation to Muslims turning to "radicalization". An analogy I like to use is to Tea Partyers. These are a group of people who are willing to defend their values by any means necessary, right? Many Tea Partyers are disenfranchised Whites who feel they are victims of liberalization. The main difference, of course, is that Tea Partyers have made up a problem that's not there while there's been a quantifiable impact on Muslim peoples.

TL;DR When you abuse people, they will use any justification to respond and make sure their response is felt both via size of response and severity. Turning to a religious root is a great way to motivate.

 

Alright, well equating safety measures from cars to guns is absurd and it makes no sense.

First of all, there are no gun manufactures that will start creating precautionary accessories for their weapons for a couple of reasons - 1. third party companies already make these types of things. 2. a real gun owner knows how to handle weapons and wouldn't appreciate something like that being installed...thus losing out on sales.

However, I do agree that there needs to be stricter laws in place to purchase any type of gun. Living in California, they've gotten more strict over the past 5 years or so, going so far as to needing background checks for long guns (rifles/shotguns), it used to only be fore hand guns.

If someone actually looks at the eligibility for BUYING a gun in California, you'll see that behavioral and drug related charges/judgments/treatments disqualify you, along with violent misdemeanors and things along those lines.

 

Absolutely, any Muslim perspective is informative. This makes sense.

 

case and point: I was reading up on the 2011 attacks in Norway, which were apparently carried out by a radical anti-Islamic terrorist. Have I been living under a rock or is that fact just widely not published?

2011 Norway attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That being said, while the enemy is terrorism, not Islam, a large number of people committed to terrorism do so in the name of Islam and I don't think that should be ignored. While we cannot let fighting "Islamic Terrorism" turn the war on terror into a war on Islam, I don't think we can successful fight the war on terror without recognizing radical jihadists carrying out acts of terror in the name of Islam are a significant part of the problem. So is something like "Radical Jihadists" or some alternative an appropriate term to use?

 

Lots of Conservative news outlets/personalities quickly denied what Breivik did was in the name of Christianity

 

hah, ya I frequently cite that case...I mean, it was one of the worst acts of terrorism in Europe's history, with women and children being specifically targeted. Let me know when Trump wants to ban all Norwegians from entering the US.

Personally, I don't like having qualifiers tied to the term terrorist (which, in and of itself, is a flawed term). My perspective is that if you use it for one group (in this case, Islamists) apply it to all others. The DC beltway shooter was not a Black terrorist, Israeli soldiers who torture Palestinian civilians are not Zionist terrorists, etc. The qualifiers we use for terrorists who are Muslim is only done to perpetrate and justify American actions in Arab lands and further an islamophobic discourse, which is currently advantageous for politicians (gotta demonize someone, right?). Hillary's recent endorsement of the term perfectly encapsulates it...here you have a so called liberal willing to demonize a group of people because 1. it's what many centrists want to hear and 2. it will justify any military campaign in the Middle East, past present and future.

I'm guessing you want to use such terms under the pretense that it will preemptively stop terrorist activity. My response is that there must be other more systemic solutions we can devise, other than using racist terminology that will lead to destruction of Muslim lives, at home and abroad. For example, not letting a guy who had been investigated by the FBI legally purchase an AR-15.

 

For your first question, go for it.

Second question, I think Richter is correct. Religion, like anything else, is a framework through which the norms and customs are interpreted and often justified, or challenged. From his profile, he isn't expressing grievances in the sense we might think of them, e.g., US foreign policy has destroyed our village; rather, he seems, if anything, much closer to Elliott Rodgers and Dylann Roof. His entitlement, hatred, and anger, was all-American, but it sought out a home in an ideology that lied elsewhere.

 

For a group of people to use religion as a vehicle for terrorism, there hast to be a lot of social, political, and economic motives involved.

The more I hear "Radical Islam" the more people will never understand that. Instead it will be seen as something that grew out of some dark corner of the religion itself.